5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and is currently detained in Szczecinek Prison.
6.  On 1 July 1999 the applicant was arrested by the German police on suspicion of having committed a murder in Germany. On the same date he was remanded in custody by the German authorities.
7.  On 28 January 2000 the applicant was surrendered to the Polish authorities.
8.  On the same date, the Poznań District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question. It attached importance to the serious nature of those offences and the likelihood of a severe prison sentence being imposed on the applicant.
9.  On 17 April 2000 the Poznań Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention to 26 July 2000. It stated that it resulted from the other suspects’ testimonies, expert reports and other evidence that the applicant had committed the offences of which he was suspected. It stressed that the investigation was in its final stage but some additional time would be necessary for the suspects to acquaint themselves with the large volume of evidence. Finally, it drew importance to the fact that there were several suspects in the case and that the less restrictive measure would not secure the proper conduct of the proceedings.
10.  The applicant’s appeals against several decisions extending his detention were unsuccessful.
11.  On 30 June 2000 the prosecution filed a bill of indictment with the Poznań Regional Court. There were five defendants in the case, all charged with numerous offences. The applicant was charged with murder.
12.  On 4 December 2000 the trial court held the first hearing. It subsequently held some thirteen hearings in the case.
13.  During the court proceedings the Poznań Regional Court further extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention on several occasions, namely, on 17 July 2000 (to 30 January 2001), 22 January 2001 (to 30 April 2001) and 23 April 2001 (to 30 June 2001) repeating the reasons given previously.
14.  On 28 June and 28 December 2001 the Poznań Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) repeated the earlier arguments given for the applicant’s continued detention, underlining the complexity of the case and the substantial volume of evidence to be examined, including expert reports from abroad.
15.  On 27 June 2002 the Poznań Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention to 30 September 2002 stating merely that the evidence collected during the proceedings seemed to indicate that he had committed the offences with which he was charged.
16.  On an unspecified date the Poznań Regional Court decided that the criminal proceedings had to start anew as more than the statutory period of 35 days elapsed between two consecutive hearings.
17.  On 3 September 2002 the Poznań Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention to 28 February 2003. It did not rely on any new arguments. It considered that the applicant’s detention for the subsequent months was reasonable given that the criminal proceedings in his case had to start anew.
18.   On 2 October 2002 the trial started anew. Subsequently, the court held seven hearings.
19.  On 20 February 2003 the Poznań Regional Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The applicant appealed. He remained detained pending appellate proceedings.
20.  On 10 March 2004 the Poznań Court of Appeal upheld the first‑instance judgment in respect of the applicant.
21. On 1 March 2005 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal as manifestly ill-founded.
22.  On 28 January 2000 the applicant was committed to Rawicz Prison. Since that date he has been continuously detained in several penitentiary facilities. On an unspecified date in early 2008, he was transferred to Szczecinek Prison where he is currently detained.
23.  The parties gave partly differing accounts of the conditions of the applicant’s detention.
24.  The applicant maintained that during his entire detention he was held in overcrowded cells in conditions which did not comply with the basic standards of hygiene.
25.  The Government acknowledged that the applicant had spent 2 years, 6 months and 20 days in cells in which the statutory minimum size of 3 m² per person had not been respected. They maintained however that currently the applicant was detained in a cell in which the statutory minimum requirement was respected. This submission was not contested by the applicant.
26.  The applicant lodged several complaints to the Ombudsman and the penitentiary authorities regarding the conditions of his detention. All of them were found groundless. The applicant did not bring a civil action in tort to seek compensation for the infringement of his personal rights.